Open Discussion

Sandy has suggested that we have a space for open discussion of topics that may be off-topic. That's fine with me. Let's see if the "Discussion" option will serve that purpose. Please give it a shot. Jim

Replies to This Discussion

For some reason I decided to speculate idly on Bugliosi. He is way too smart to believe his own bull. So that tells me he either:
:
A. Got paid well for his book and when push comes to shove he will always follow money.

B. It was his payment due for some favor he owed. Either Mob or CIA.

Thom Hartmann appears to have done the same thing in his book co-authored with Lamar Waldron "Legacy of Secrecy". The idea that RFK would keep silent on his brothers killers is way too obtuse of a theory.

Hartmann whom I otherwise highly respect for other reasons seems to have at least mildly degraded himself by putting his name on this book.

Better reading is Russ Baker's "Family Of Secrets". Only problem I have with that book is that after about the first 200 pages or so of reading about the awful things the Bush Crime Family does I got disgusted. Almost sick to my stomach.

the truth can be a difficult read.

Thoth II said:

Vince Bugliosi, American tragedy.

Since I've heard so much about the great attorney, I finally decided to include his works on my summer reading list. After rereading several of his books, I've come to a sad conclusion.

He did some great things as LA county assistant DA. I think the greatest thing he did was defend a young woman who a zealous Hawaiian prosecutor was trying to railroad for murder on Palmyra atoll. There were 2 couples on the island, one couple ended up dead, and of course as Vince says "four minus two leaves two" ; so the prosecutors tried shenigans to railroad Jennifer. However, Vince proved that "four minus two leaves one" and he proved that Buck Walker killed them and concealed this from Jennifer, because she was 200 yards away at time of crime and occupied in her boat.

Now I read the short rerelease of his massive tome on JFK ; I wouldn't waste my time with the rest. And I read Jim DiEugenio's review of this book. Jim absolutely picks the books to pieces.

What happened to Vince? I think a case could be made that he cancelled out the good work he did with this massive disinformation tome on JFK.

Trouble is, see, he is a DA, put away Charlie Manson, and if you read Helter Skelter, you'll see he depending (a) heavily on the LAPD investigation, and even had to kick butt to get them to do things (b) conducted his own parallel investigation.
He spent 2 years nonstop filling up his legal pads. But then when it came to JFK, he wasn't involved personally in that case, so going back to his DA days, guess which people he will knee jerk trust? the investigative authorities, of course, like the warren commission, FBI, HSCA, etc. He put extensive research into his book on JFK for 20 years, but he did it as a prosecutor's brief: and he special pleads.

What he just doesn't get , to this day is, in a case like this, where the stakes are absolutely of scale high, the investigative authorities had a political motive to fabricate evidence, and Jim Fetzer's group of experts showed exactly how they fabricated all the evidence; plus Doug Horne has now written a treatise where he goes into more detail.

"sad news: Jim DiEugenio finally has made a big mistake: he firmly is staying "agnostic" on Z film alteration because he doesn't want to spend a decade on the Z film, and he's a careful studier. He doesn't seem to understand the implication of this. After John Costella's work and now the topper , Doug Horne's Inside the ARRB, I think the ball game is over: the film was fabricated! And this is not the small thing people might think, it is major. It totally distorts the events of the assassination like taking out the limo stop that goes right to secret service complicity, it doesn't clearly show the several impacts on JFK and Connally . Plus, it means the CIA had the film and altered it! If Lee Oswald did it, why did they alter it? Who was Zapruder? Too bad Jim doesn't get this."

I'm afraid the situation is even worse than this in regard to Jim DiEugenio. He has now reviewed Inside the ARRB at CTKA.net and one excerpt from his review:

"where the author (Horne) gets into trouble is when he tries to fit the interesting facts and testimony he discusses into an overarching theory. Because...he still sticks to the concept of pre-autopsy surgery, and extensive criminal conduct by the pathologists. And as Lifton clearly suggested in his book, Horne will also argue that the Zapruder film was both edited and optically printed"

Jim D: I have news for you, there was pre-autopsy surgery and the Z-film was altered.

Jim D, has shown himself to be incompetent in the area of the medical and film evidence. Jim's strong point is analysis of documents, but he is plain wrong about this.

[Editor's note: This book, which I edited, deals with rather subtle and complex issues, which thus required a reviewer who was completely familiar with the issues. That person, Rich DellaRosa, moderator of the JFKresearch.com forum, had even contributed an appendix to the book. Here follows his review.]

THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX:
DECEIT AND DECEPTION IN THE DEATH OF JFK
James H. Fetzer, ed. (Chicago, IL: Catfeet Press/
Open Court, 2003), pp. xx + 496

by Richard J. DellaRosa
The title of the book leaves little doubt about the subject matter. If it was a non-fiction murder mystery perhaps it would have been titled "The Butler Did It."

"The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" is the third in a series of books edited by Jim Fetzer comprised of various essays and white papers dealing with the JFK assassination. The earlier volumes are "Assassination Science" (1998) and "Murder In Dealey Plaza" (2000). While not absolutely necessary, it is beneficial to read all 3 books in sequence since "Hoax" contains references published in the earlier volumes.

The Zapruder Film. That famous home movie taken by dress manufacturer and amateur photographer Abraham Zapruder on November 22, 1963, while perched conspicuously on a concrete pedestal in Dealey Plaza. It has been called the most important single piece of evidence in the JFK case.

But is it? Some have even referred to it as a "time clock" of the assassination: it established a benchmark -- that the murder of the 35th President took place in 5.6 (alternately 6.2) seconds. Is this true? Many researchers believe that Zapruder's camera-original film is stored at the National Archives. Is it? If not, then where is the camera-original today?

In 1998, the Assassinations Record review Board (ARRB) designated the film an official assassination record and compensated Zapruder's survivors $16 million. What exactly did the American taxpayers purchase? And a rather vocal group of marketers believe the extant Zapruder film is genuine. Is it?

Consider, for a moment, the following words:

o Edited

o Modified

o Altered

o Manipulated

o Falsified

o Fabricated

With respect to a discussion of the Zapruder film, they are far from synonymous. Each, in increasing degrees, involve a devious, malicious and perhaps even a criminal intent. The authors tackle these issues in great detail.

There has been much lively debate on whether the Zapruder film was "altered." A rather small group believes it was not. But how do we define "altered?" Understanding the established timelines and chronology of the extant film we know that there are 2 splices: one at frame 157 and another at frame 207. In addition, frames 208, 209, 210, and 211 are missing due to mishandling by an un-named technician a Time-Life during the time that they had possession of it. Unaltered??

Much of the "lively debate" mentioned above took place on the Internet, on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum (http://www.jfkresearch.com). It culminated in a symposium sponsored by Fetzer held in Duluth in May, 2003 where presentations were given by a professor of philosophy, an oncologist, a theoretical physicist, a well-known author, an expert in film and video production, and a photo analyst in the personages of James Fetzer, David Mantik, John Costella, David Lifton, David Healy And Jack White. The product of that symposium is the sum and substance of this book.

Calling the Zapruder film "evidence" doesn't seem appropriate somehow, mainly because, from the beginning, it was not treated as evidence. If it was "evidence" it should have been seized immediately by local law enforcement or the Secret Service. Although Zapruder claimed that he was confronted in his office by a pair of armed, uniformed DPD officers who demanded his film, he refused. Instead, he actively sought to sell it to the highest bidder. When is "evidence" ever handled in such a manner?

Zapruder reported that he sold his film to Time-Life on Saturday November 23, 1963 for $25,000 which he donated to the family of DPD officer J.D. Tippit. In truth, he had sold the print rights to Time-Life for $50,000. That transaction allowed LIFE magazine to publish still photos made from selected frames. It did not allow them the rights to show the film as a motion picture.

But, on Monday November 25, Time-Life offered Zapruder an additional $100,000 for the movie rights as well. The total amount was paid on an annual basis over the next four years. As author David Lifton notes, that coincided exactly with LBJ's term in office. [Editor's note: This $150,000 is equal roughly to $900,000 in 2004.] As many researchers have observed, the total transaction effectively removed the film from being accessed or viewed, except as determined by persons unknown. What is known is that the name on the agreement was C.D. Jackson of Time-Life, a man who was a close associate of Allen Dulles and who was known to have cooperated with the CIA on occasion.

The film's provenance is rather hazy at best and it is doubtful that it would have been admissible in a court of law if there ever had been a trial of Lee Oswald. The film was Kodachrome which required a proprietary, patented processing which could only be accomplished in 1963 at select Kodak facilities. A piece of correspondence contained in Roland Zavada's report to the ARRB indicated that Kodachrome could only be processed at labs in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles in 1963. What about Dallas?

Zapruder stated that his film was processed at Kodak in Dallas (and there seems to be no reason, other than the above mentioned correspondence, to doubt this). The processed film then was taken by Zapruder to the Jamieson labs so that 3 optical print copies could be made. Supposedly, the camera-original film and one copy was transferred to Time-Life, and 2 copies were given to the Secret Service. This scenario has been told and re-told dozens of times over the years.

But author David Healy reports that at Jamieson, the camera-original Was assigned number 0183, while the copies were given identification Numbers 0185, 0186 and 0187. So, what happened to 0184? Did they just skip that number, and, if so, why? Or, was there an unaccounted copy made?

In the waning days of the brief tenure of the ARRB, a former CIA photoanalyst, Homer McMahon, provided testimony that in 1963 he worked at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington. NPIC was a part of the CIA and was an advanced photographic facility which, among other projects, was responsible for analyzing the U2 photos which showed the build-up of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962.

McMahon's narrative included a report that a Secret Service agent named "Smith" delivered an amateur, 8mm film of the assassination to NPIC on the evening of 11/22/63. "Smith" advised McMahon that the film had been "processed" at Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York and then rushed onto Washington. Was this the Zapruder film?? Well, so much for the supposed long-established provenance. Could the film which was delivered to NPIC be the unaccounted copy #0184? 0184 may have been an inter-negative made by Jamieson which Kodak then "processed" in Rochester by making a positive print.

McMahon reported that he was never left alone with the film and was not allowed to make copies of it. He was asked to analyze it and prepare briefing boards. His in-depth analysis was that there was evidence of 6 to 8 shots fired at the motorcade from at least 3 directions. On viewing the film ten or more times that evening, McMahon was (and still is) convinced of his conclusions.

Does that description match what is seen today in the extant film? And why didn't the Warren Commission Report or the final report of the HSCA mention that the film was sent to the CIA? By now, the answer is probably obvious.

When interviewed in the 1990s, Zapruder's business partner Erwin Schwartz, said that he vividly recalled watching the film and Remembered seeing JFK's head suddenly "whip around to the left" and saw an explosion of blood and brains from his head and that it had been blown out "to the left rear."

On February 13, 1969 Zapruder said that he could not tell if frames Were missing from his film nor could he vouch for the film's chain of custody. It is possible that Zapruder could not recognize his film?

The authors present discussions of the following issues:

o Did Abraham Zapruder actually take the film attributed to him? There are films and stills which seem to show Zapruder without his camera up to his face, and some which show his employee Marilyn Sitzman actually blocking his view. And a further photo shows no one standing on the pedestal. In the Willis and Betzner photos, Zapruder appears to be on the concrete pedestal shooting a movie. But in the Bronson slide a bit later, the Moorman Polaroid, and the Nix film, Zapruder does not seem to be filming at all. Yet Zapruder stated, more than once, that he began shooting his film when the motorcade came into sight on Houston street and continued shooting until the limo was out of sight.

o Did the technology and expertise necessary to alter film exist in 1963? It is indeed fortuitous that a member of the team is David Healy, a man with extensive experience (30+ years)in video and film production who is intimately familiar with the working of optical printers and other equipment and techniques used to apply special effects to film and motion pictures. Healy demonstrated early attempts to create composite images. In one case, a work called "Fading Away" by Henry Robinson was shown. It is composed of 10 separate images yet there are no visible cut lines and it displays an even density across all 10 image pieces. The end result is quite remarkable and is reproduced in the book. Even more astounding is that it was created in 1858 -- more than a century before the JFK assassination.

o Were other films and photos taken that day also altered in order to agree with what is shown in the extant Zapruder film? One very vocal member of the anti-alteration camp uses this argument to prove that the Z film could not have been altered. In other words, since other films and photos seem to show similar events in Dealey Plaza, the Z film must then be genuine. He uses other pieces of photography to verify what is seen on the Z film. But this begs the question, if the Z film was altered, why wouldn't other photos and films be likewise altered? Would it not have been absolutely ridiculous to alter one piece of photographic evidence and not any other??

o If the Zapruder film was altered, why was it done? When the extant Z film became available for public consumption, the majority of those viewing it felt that it proved there was a frontal shot and therefore it seemingly showed the Warren Commission wrong. So why would anyone need to alter it? The authors explore this in great detail. Knowing what is seen in the extant film, one's imagination can only wonder what any alterations would conceal. It would be entirely reasonable that anything not consistent with the Warren Commission's conclusions would need to be edited out. Would an unaltered film completely destroy the Warren Report?? Would it show, as Homer McMahon described, 6 or more shots fired from 3 or more directions? Would the alterations themselves be prima facie proof of a massive government cover-up?

o Who was Abraham Zapruder? Did he merely serendipitiously appear in a key location to witness and record a major piece of history? In this reviewer's opinion these are questions which deserve far more attention. We learn that Zapruder was born in Russia and that he was associated with Dallas's White-Russian community, as was Lee and Marina Oswald, Ruth and Michael Paine, and George DeMorhenshildt. In fact, we learn that Jeanne LeGon, one of De Morhenshildt's wives worked for Zapruder as a dress designer. One of Jack Ruby's janitors also worked for Zapruder for a time and Zapruder was also an acquaintance of Jack Ruby himself. Zapruder was also an associate of H.L. Hunt. Author Lifton states his belief in the serendipity theory, that Zapruder was just an innocent bystander with a camera, while apparently the other authors believe there may be far more to Mr Zapruder than what we have been told (but not that Z had any actual foreknowledge of the events that day).

o Does the extant film show the true and accurate events that occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? Well, if it did this book and the Symposium that spawned it would not have been necessary. In fact, the film does not agree with the accounts of the closest eyewitnesses. Several dozen of them described a brief limo stop just prior to the fatal head shot. Yet the extant film depicts the limo proceeding down Elm Street at a rather smooth, constant, rate of speed. So, if it is altered, what does the extant film conceal? First and foremost it conceals evidence of more than 3 shots from more than a single shooter firing from the rear. That alone would invalidate the Warren Commission Report. Next, it conceals the possible complicity of one or more of the Secret Service agents. It conceals the limo stop, which made the head shot(s) easier to accomplish. Did Greer stop on purpose, or on cue? Author David Mantik states that he believes that JFK was hit by two head shots: one from the rear and one from the right front. He believes they occurred roughly at Z-313 and Z-321. Yet the extant film shows nothing of the sort. This 2 shot scenario also concurs with many eyewitness accounts.

o Was Mary Moorman standing in the street when she snapped her famous photo?? And if so, why does it matter? This one particular topic was the subject matter for a lengthy exchange between the authors and one of the anti-alteration teams and took place on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum on-line. To say that this issue created a spirited debate is quite an understatement. Author John Costella summarized the Moorman-in-the-street issue thusly:

"An analysis by Jack White in which he claims that the lines of sight inherent in Moorman #5 located her camera position precisely -- at such a height that she must have been standing on the roadway of Elm Street -- whereas the (extant) Zapruder film shows her standing on the grass some feet behind the curb."

Both Mary Moorman and her companion that day, Jean Hill, repeated their claims that Mary stood in the street to take her picture. Since the extant film shows Moorman to be standing on the grass, either the two women were mistaken -- or -- the film was altered. But the authors did not merely need to rely on the women's memory. Jack White noticed that the intersection of two lines-of-sight involving the Pergola windows and the top of the concrete pedestal could only occur when sighted in from the exact location where Moorman said she was standing: in Elm Street itself. In 2001, authors White, Mantik and Fetzer utilized surveyor's equipment to locate the spot exactly in Dealey Plaza. The conclusion is inevitable: the extant film has been altered - significantly.

o Has the Zapruder family been unfairly enriched? As noted above, the total amount paid to Zapruder by Time-Life was $150,000. In 1975, Time sold the film and all of its copyrights to Zapruder's survivor and family for $1.00. They formed the LMH corporation and hired an attorney to function as a "royalty cop." If anyone wished to use the Zapruder film or portions of it, a royalty had to be paid in every case. Royalties ranged from $3,000 to the $80,000 that Oliver Stone paid in order to use the film in his movie "JFK." In the late 1990s, the ARRB declared the Zapruder film to be an assassination record consistent with the JFK Records Act which empowered them. Federal law mandates that when the government takes possession of private property compensation must be made representing a "fair value." The ARRB determined the film to have a market value of $16 million and paid that amount to the Zapruders, with the Zapruders retaining the copyrights. Said copyrights were transferred subsequently to the Dallas Historical Foundation d/b/a/ (doing business as) The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.

But, as the authors advise, if the Zapruder film is altered, that is, If it not a genuine photographic record of the JFK assassination, has the Zapruder family been unfairly enriched using taxpayer monies? If so, should the Zapruders re-pay it? This is not a trivial issue because it lies at the heart and soul of the anti-alterationists. They have demonstrated that their interest isn't the preservation of an historical document. Rather, their true interests are quite parochial and mercenary. Specifically, if those who seek to profit from the extant film admit that the film has been tampered with and is not genuine, the value diminishes to nothing more than evidence of one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetuated on the American people and the world community. Hence the anti-alterationists have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to discredit any and all proof of the film's alteration, manipulation, and downright fabrication.

These issues and others are presented by the authors in this compelling book. Whether one becomes convinced of Zapruder film alteration after reading this book is a matter of choice but not for lack of information or substantiation.

Of all the presenters who travelled to Duluth for the Symposium, the one who travelled farthest was Dr. John Costella, a theoretical physicist from Australia. Dr. Costella is something of a new-comer to the area of JFK research but he has made astounding contributions already.

One of the more fascinating discoveries Costella has made involves the Stemmons Freeway sign in Dealey Plaza. As it turns out, the lens system on Zapruder's camera was patented by Bell & Howell. Its characteristics are well documented. As many are aware, Zapruder's Bell & Howell Directors Series 414 PD camera was set on telephoto while he filmed the presidential motorcade. This lens has a characteristic "pincushioning" effect which tends to pull the image frames outward.

This pincushioning effect is clearly present in the extant Zapruder film, as it should be. Except, there is no pincushioning detected for the Stemmons Freeway sign along Elm Street, and, there should be.

Costella shows that it is physically impossible for pincushioning to occur in portions of movie frames selectively while other portions are free from the distortion. How could the Stemmons sign have escaped the pincushioning?

The short and undeniable answer is that the Stemmons Freeway sign as it appears was inserted into the film after it was processed. The sign should have had the same pincushion distortion as the rest of the frame as well as all the frames before and after the ones in which the sign appears.

Recall that the extant film shows JFK smiling and waving to the crowd prior to disappearing behind the sign. When he re-emerges he has his hands up to his throat as he reacts to being shot. Irrefutably, the Stemmons sign obscures the throat shot - a frontal throat shot. Some researchers have theorized that the sign was also struck by a shot from the Knoll. (The sign was not made of metal but was plywood). Are these the reasons an artificial sign was inserted into the extant film? If so, Costella reasons, the extant film was not merely "altered" -- it was "fabricated." Fabricated, as in "falsified" -- with criminal intent since obstructing justice was, and still is, a crime.

Consider also, that we are told that Zapruder carefully selected his position and although he stated that he suffered from vertigo, he chose to stand perched on top of that concrete pedestal. Yet, his closest point of view (POV) of the motorcade had a sign obstructing it. As author Healy notes, if Zapruder had chosen to stand at ground level in front of the Pergola, he would have enjoyed an unobstructed view.

The final presentation is an interesting narrative by author David Lifton, detailing his 30+ year experience studying and analyzing the Zapruder film and his early suspicions of its alteration and forgery. Lifton is familiar to students of the JFK case mainly due to his best selling book "Best Evidence" which explored the possibility of body alteration. In this treatise he deals with film alteration.

In fact it was Lifton who wrote to Warren Commission photo expert Shaneyfelt in 1965 to point out that the 2 frames published in Volume 18 appeared to be reversed. As a result he received a letter from no less than J. Edgar Hoover explaining that it was due to a "printing error." Later, on close examination of the film, Lifton noted that frames 335 and 337 showed what seemed to be a painted-on head wound which did not fit the description that nearly all of the Parkland doctors saw only moments later. Suspiciously, the head wound did match the description given later by the Bethesda autopsists.

Author David Healy believes that the famous "blob" seen in some copies in the vicinity of Z-313 and the head wound noted by Lifton in frames Z-335 and Z-337 were created using a piece of glass placed over those frames. The artifacts then were painted onto the glass by a highly skilled matte artist. Lifton then points out that the most accomplished matte artists in the world are employed by the movie studios in Hollywood and raised suspicions of whether the Zapruder film could have been sent to one of them for alteration. But a matte artist would not be able to work with an 8mm image as it is far too small.

Enter Moses Weitzman, a highly talented motion picture technician in New York. Clearly Weitzman was not a party to any of the subterfuge or alteration. However, in 1967 Time-Life approached Weitzman and requested him to make a 16mm copy of the 8mm Zapruder film. Weitzman perfected a technique which actually allowed him to make a 35mm copy from 8mm in one step. But was the film given to Weitzman for copying the camera-original or an already altered copy?

An email from Weitzman to this reviewer dated July 10, 2003 states, "I can assure you I had the original unaltered, slit, regular 8mm footage. It would have been technically impossible to do any matte work or even optical printing." Author Lifton disagrees. The creation of 35mm frames were key, in his opinion, to the creation of matte images superimposed to alter the images of JFK's wounds. Weitzman could not have known whether the 8mm film was the camera-original.

In the same communication, Weitzman wrote, "An employee of mine pirated a copy and made a career of it." Enter Robert Groden. David Lifton has had an interesting history with Robert Groden over the past 30 years which he describes in some detail in this book. In Lifton's stated opinion, Groden has adopted the belief that he (Groden) personally owns any JFK-related material that he touches. This has been problematic in having some of those items available to bona fide researchers. Having worked with HSCA as a photoanalyst, Groden has had access to plenty.

Moses Weitzman also had the opportunity to work on the Nix film for UPI. When he viewed the Nix film on a Hazeltine analyzer at 8X magnification he wrote in a subsequent email to this reviewer: "To Zapruder's right there was a picket fence and behind that fence a clearly discernable image of what looked like a person holding a silver rod (about what a rifle barrel would look like) at port position. We sent several copies to the Jet Propulsion Lab at Cal Tech. Unfortunately they could only do B&W. They lost the nuances of color that shaped the image. A flesh colored void where a head should be, two smaller flesh colored blobs holding a silver colored broom stick. . . They could not find anything on what we sent them." And later commented "The original Nix footage and the blowups we made seemed to have melted away." So, what has happened to the original Nix film? David Lifton has his suspicions.

When the alterations were made to the Zapruder film is not clear. There appears to be concurrence by the authors that some were done the very weekend of the assassination. But since the film was withheld from the public for some 12 years there is no way to know when and where other modifications were accomplished.

This all nets out to the authors' assertion that the extant Zapruder film is not an authentic representation of what occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. It does not concur with the descriptions of the closest eyewitnesses. It is not merely an altered film but a total fabrication. In fact, the extant film may have been constructed using, not only Zapruder's film, but other films taken that day. This may account for Zapruder choosing such a poor POV -- he may have been a decoy intended to distract attention from other cameramen concealed nearby.

For a relatively small cadre of researchers, the Zapruder film alteration issue is moot. They have seen another film of the assassination -- a better quality film. A description of it is reproduced in Appendix E. These fortunate folks have seen a film which closely matches the eyewitness accounts and is very different from the extant Zapruder film. This "other" film shows the limo turning from Houston onto Elm; it shows the limo coming to a full, yet brief, stop; it shows a man stepping into the street with fist raised possibly a signal for the driver to stop; it shows 2 shots to JFK's head from 2 directions; and it shows a shower of brain particulate violently sprayed to the left rear.

It is important to note that none of the people who claim to have seen this film ever did so in the presence of any of the others. Nor did they view it in the same geographic location. Yet their descriptions of what they saw in the film match identically. For them, there is no question that the extant Zapruder film is a fabrication, part and parcel of a massive cover-up of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Whether one agrees with the conclusions of the authors, this is an important book for researchers and students alike. The authors have amassed a considerable amount of substantiation for their claims and the amount of effort is significant.

The Z-film that "bill smith" brought to the NPIC from the Hawkeye Works at Rochester was processed there, while the original Z-film was developed at Dallas. - BK

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 9 2009, 11:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Bill, this is helpful. Presumably, if there were an uninterrupted chain of custody--an authentic uninterrupted chain of custody--then it would have been impossible for the film to have been altered. An interrupted chain of custody is therefore a necessary condition for film fakery. (I have no doubt that this is why, instead of confronting multiple proofs of anomalies, Thompson has focused on the alleged "uninterrupted chain of custody".) That Horne has now established that the chain of custody was actually broken--that there IS no "authentic unbroken chain of custody"--is therefore valuable in refuting his argument. But there is a difference between HOW it might have been done and whether or not it WAS done. Your lack of interest in the anomalies that prove it WAS done has therefore been a reflection of your failure to distinguish HOW IT WAS DONE from WHETHER IT WAS DONE. David Lifton, Jack White, David Mantik, and John Costella--not to mention Rich DellaRosa--have established THAT IT WAS FAKED. Notice, in particular, that even if there were a broken chain of custody and two more teams were working on physically different kinds of film, as you have previously described, that is not enough to prove that they were working on TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the film. That is a question of content and no end of research on the chain of custody can replace PROOF IT WAS ALTERED. I am willing to grant that this new information completely destroys the argument that Thompson has pushed (of there having been no opportunity for it to have been faked). But those of us who understand the anomalies have always KNOWN IT WAS FAKED, where the residual question was HOW IT WAS DONE. This question, I am delighted to say, now appears to have been resolved. But notice that, if the film restoration experts who reviewed the film for Doug HAD NOTICED NO ANOMALIES, the whole matter would be moot. In fact, it was SPECTACULARLY OBVIOUS to them that the film had been faked. No one would care if the chain of custody had been broken, because, given an absence of anomalies, IT WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED. I think your heart is in the right place--I do not question your sincerity!--but you have to see through Thompson's phony argument. Now that you have, I hope you can appreciate why the anomalies matter. There is a basic difference between proving THAT SOMETHING HAS BEEN DONE from proving EXACTLY HOW IT WAS DONE. You have been preoccupied with the latter, we with the former. Both matter, but in different ways. I hope that this clarifies where I stand and that you now agree to the importance of both. I hope so.

yep, and they hafta recycle the lies and make new lies to make
sure the truth doesn't try to seep out. guilty guilty guilty.

but hey, thanks to all real honest 9/11 truthers, much work
has been done, and if we could have bagged them, we would
have bagged them, it ain't fer lack of tryin. what the truther world
has done has been outstanding, courageous and muchly, and
thanks to our world anyone who goes looking for 9/11 truth info
need only go click, click, glide, click, gasp! and then keep gasping.

they (the horrid perps) know we know, and hey, in that we have won!
and they know that truthers have made it available to the whole world! @

we should never give up, keeping on just enhances our pile of truth.

love you guys, the real ones, i got my eye on you fake ones,
good thing we're there for each other thru all the agony and horridness.
there is always reason to hope and keep working and try to at least
have some sort of slivers of happiness creep into our lives here and there. lovies!

Thoth II said:

well folks another anniversary of 911 is being marked on history channel. Today I see they have 19 straight hours of pseudo documentaries on 911. The official lie lives on at history channel.

Murder in Dealey Plaza:What We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then About
the Death of JFK [1] is a book of readings about newly developed
information. It is edited by Jim Fetzer, who also edited Assassination
Science, [2] and convened a conference [3] in Minneapolis with many of the
same authors. Fourteen different articles are the meat of this book.
Fetzer begins this with "Smoking Guns". Sixteen smoking guns are
discussed, many of which are gone over in considerable detail by the other
authors. Fetzer chose a logical sequence for presenting the articles. With
apologies, the order is changed here, with significance to the overall
story dictating order.

Two Different Brains

A logical starting point for me is Doug Horne's "Evidence of a goverment
Cover-up: Two Different Brain Specimens at President Kennedy's Autopsy". I
had attended the conference in Minneapolis where John Tunheim, who had
directed the work of the Assassination Records REVIEW Board (ARRB), stated
that there would be no smoking guns in the released records. [4] Doug
Horne has apparently proven his boss wrong. Horne concluded that there
were two different examinations of the JFK brain. The first examination
occurred on (or about) November 25, 1963. Dr. Pierre Finck was not present
for that examination, but was present at an examintion, purportedly of
JFK's brain, on November 29, 1963. An autopsy photographer, John Stringer,
claimed Finck was not present at the examination. Stringer took several
photographs. Yet the archive photographs include several different views
that Stringer did not take. This present rendering is but a short outline
of the intricate story that comes from the files at the archives that
allowed Horne to posit two different brains at the two examinations.

A Chronology of 22 November 1963

Ira David Woods III has been working on a chronology of events in Dallas.
His chronology, JFK Assassination Chronology, is said to be over 400 pages
long and still not completed. The present reported chronology ("22
November 1963: A Chronology",) is 101 pages long. The chronology has its
own smoking guns. One favorite of mine is Oswald's wallet. At 7:10 AM, he
left his wallet in the dresser with $170 in it; Oswald carried $13.87 to
work. Sixty-one pages later, he left wallet #2 at the Tippit murder scene,
together with a driver's license. Eleven pages later, wallet #3 showed up
at the Texas Theatre where Oswald is arrested. WFAA newsfilm shows the
wallet being gone through at the theatre. It should be noted that five
wallets of Oswald's have been accounted for; in addition to the three
mentioned here, two additional wallets were taken from the Paine residence
by the FBI. [5] Also related in this chronology is the Summers [6] story
that J.D. Tippit had begun an affair with a waitress who worked at
Austin's Barbecue Drive In. Tippit worked at the barbecue in his off
hours. The recently divorced paramour of Tippit was taken to the funeral
parlor by her ex-husband to see Tippit's body before Tippit's widow and
family arrived. The Tippit paramour then revealed to her jealous
ex-husband that she was pregnant by Tippit. The ex-husband had on
occassion followed the two at night in his car. The couple reunited, with
the husband raising the child as his own until their next breakup in 1968.

The Secret Service

Douglas Weldon has focused on the JFK limousine; this focus has lead
directly to the involvement of the Secret Service ("The Kennedy Limousine:
Dallas 1963"). Weldon reviews the confusing and contradictory history of
the limousine. What is clear is that the Secret Service either destroyed,
or had destroyed, evidence of the assassination regarding the limousine.
An agent was photographed with a bucket and water and sponge to wash blood
and brain matter out of the area where JFK sat. [see 7, p.41] Also, a boy
was taking pictures of the limousine outside Parkland Hospital, a Secret
Service agent took away his camera and exposed the film. The Altgen's
photo [see 8, pp. 30-31] shows the bullet hole in the limousine; the
picture was taken at a time equivalent to Z-255. It was rumored that the
Secret Service ordered 20 windshields for the limousine. The picture of
the windshield produced by the Secret Service a week after the
assassination likely could have been one of these substitutes.

Weldon hypothesises the windshield damage was caused by a shot from the
south knoll, perhaps from the storm drain. Secret Service agent Emory
Roberts, in command of the agents in the second car, ordered the agents
not to move at the sound of the first shot. Roberts also appeared to take
command at Parkland Hospital exercising authority he did not posess.

The centerpiece of Weldon's article is the witness from the Ford Motor
Company. The Ford employee, who asked not to be named (actually he didn't
want his story told during his lifetime; he did partially relent. Weldon
played the tape recording of his conversations with the Ford employee at
the Minneapolis Conference [9]). The Ford employee was at work at the
Dearborn, Michigan plant on 11/25/63 when he was told by a division Vice
President to go to the glass plant lab. He and two other employees were to
make a template from the limousine windshield so that it could be
replaced. The windshield had a bullet through it, eminating from the
outside. The carpeting and the interior were completely stripped out. The
original windshield was removed, broken up and scrapped, as they were
ordered to do. Only two people could have ordered the limousine taken to
Dearborn, Lyndon Johnson and James Rowley, Chief of Secret Service. It
seems unlikely that Rowley would make this decision except at Johnson's
approval.

A scathing REVIEW of Weldon's article was recently published by Tim Smith.
[10] Smith maintains that there was no hole in the windshield, and berates
Weldon for not naming the Ford employee. The idea that someone fears for
their life if they tell what they know seems to escape Smith.

Vincent Palamara, a leading student of the Secret Service's involvement
with the assassination, [see 11] addresses three focal members of the
Secret Service, Floyd Boring, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the
White House Detail, Emory Roberts and Bill Geer. Dallas Sheriff Bill
Decker had promised full support to motorcade security; this help was
rejected, presumably by Boring, who was in Washington but in charge of
planning for the Texas trip. More stripping of security included removal
of flanking police motorcyclists, and without agents sitting on the back
of the limousine. Roberts left two agents at Love Field, Henry Rybka and
Don Lawton. Both had been involved in protection to JFK in recent
motorcades. Roberts also ordered agents not to move toward the limousine.
Only Clint Hill, assigned to protect Jaqueline Kennedy, ran to the
limousine, but too late for JFK. At Parkland Hospital, Roberts usurped
Agent Kellerman's authority. Upon seeing JFK was dead in the limousine,
Roberts said to Kellerman, "You stay with Kennedy. I'm going to Johnson".
[12] Bill Geer was the driver of the limousine who apparently slowed the
limousine down almost to a stop (or did momemtarily stop), allowing a
better shot (or shots).

The Zapruder film

An article that addresses eyewitness statements, Vince Palamara reports
(59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street, pp. 119-128) on 59 Dealey Plaza
witnesses. The witnesses reported that a) either the limousine stopped; or
the limosine slowed to almost a complete stop. The Zapruder film shows
no such event corresponding to these reports. The eyewitness accounts
would cast doubt on the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

A second article by Doug Horne involves interviews with two former CIA
employees of the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). The
existing record says the Zapruder film had three copies made in Dallas.
Bill MacMahon of the NPIC says he was told by Secret Service agent Bill
Smith that Smith took the film from the person who who exposed it, flew it
to Kodak in Rochester, NY to get it developed, and then brought it
directly to the NPIC. It was brought there because the NPIC had special
state of the art equipment. They could enlarge each frame up to 40 times
its original size; then they would produce internegatives which were used
to produce multiple colored prints of selected frames. A second NPIC
worker, Ben Hunter, recalled that a "Captain Sands" delivered the film. He
later amended this recollection to say that a secret service agent brought
the film. MacMahon and Hunter were to find the three shots and select
frames for reproduction. MacMahon said his opinion was that Kennedy was
shot 6-8 times from three different directions. He was told that there
were three shots from behind from the School Book Depository; MacMahon
concluded they were to make frames, not do an analysis

A 16 page inset of photographs are shown and discussed by Jack White in
"The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, and Other Photographic Frauds Perpetuated
by the U.S. Government." White has done considerable photographic work. He
served as an advisor on photographic evidence to the House Select
Committee on Assassinations, as well as seved as a consultant to Oliver
Stone on JFK. White also produced the video Fake! [13] on the Oswald
backyard photos. In his present contribution, White casts doubt on whether
Zapruder actually did the filming. Several frames from the Zapruder film
are compared to other photographic evidence. There are several indications
of differences. A comparison of the photos of the Nix film and the
Zapruder film are such that that at least one of them is falsified. For
example, Z-369 and the equivalent Nix frame show some but not all the same
people from the front and the back. The Zapruder figures seem less
lifelike. It would appear to me that there is a slight time differential
between the Nix and Zapruder films; it appears at least three new people
have run into the area. It appears to me that one of the persons has
vanished (this person is labelled 4 by White in Z-369, and labeled
"S.O.B." in Cicione. [14] Unfortunately, Cicione did not include younger
people in his master list of Dealy Plaza witnesses. At least some of the
people appearing in the Nix frame, but not the Zapruder frame, appear to
be younger (under 21). What White does is show that the Zapruder film and
the Nix film are incompatible; at least one of them has been altered. One
final note on the White pictures: I was unaware of the the painted yellow
stripes in the "kill zone" until my trip to Dallas in November, 2000.
White uses the yellow stripe from the Zapruder film to make an exact frame
match to show alterations in the Zapruder film.

The final essay on the Zapruder film controversy is provided by David
Mantik, who is a major contributor to this volume. Mantik had three
articles in Assassination Science [15, 16, 17] as well as presenting at
the conference in Minneapolis. [18] His presentation in Assassination
Science was more a technical explanation of how the Zapruder film was
altered. Mantik's essay on the Zapruder film is more of an reasoned
approach attempt to show altering the film was not unthinkable. Mantik
first reviews the resemblances of the JFK assassination to that of
Fedinand in 1914. He makes the point that our knowledge of the Franz
Ferdinand assassination is almost entirely by eyewitness testimony. Were
we to take the same view with the JFK assassination, we might have a
different view; the availability and use of several different recording
devices seems to feed a sense that the evidence provided by the still film
and moving film would seem to be more reliable than eyewitness
recollection; Mantik points out that, from a legal view, for a tape to be
introduced into evidence in court, eyewitness testimony needs to preceed
the introduction of photographic evidence. For the Zapruder film to be
authentic and have an evidentiary base, a chain of posession needs to be
established. The work of Horne in this volume would strongly call into
question an unbroken chain of possession.

A very strong case for film alteration can be inferred from eyewitness
testimony, which reports either a complete stop or an almost complete stop
of the limousine on Deala Plazy. An alternative interpretation is either
the camera was erratic, or Zapruder turned off the recording to exactly
coincide with the stop. There are probably technical details that would
render the latter argument to be rejected, however, I don't have the
expertise to do so. A possibility that Mantik gives is the simple excision
of frames in selected places that could achieve a number of aims,
including removing evidence on a stop by the limousine. Such an excision
could have been directed by the Secret Service for the purpose of
eliminating the inappropriate stop (or near stop) by William Greer. The
number of anomalies in the Zapruder film are quite numerous. The
intersprocket image extends all the way to the left edge, unlike the
simulations done by Roland Zavala, a retired Kodak engineer who was
re-hired to do work with Kodak for the AARB. The overexposures typical of
a beginning filming sequence is missing in the film. The likely
interpretation is an excision. Other anomalies include William Greer's
rapid head turn, Toni Foster's unusual stop (and her growing to almost
seven feet tall [19]), among many others.

It should be noted that ther are persons who support a conspiracy approach
who argue that the Zapruder film is authentic. Notable among them is Hal
Verb [see, for example, 20, 21]. On the other hand, a long term dissenter
against accuracy of the Zapruder film is Harrison Livingston [see 22-26].

The Medical Evidence

Gary Aguilar, in "The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy in the Death
of JFK", makes the point that the available medical evidence grabs the
skeptic who searches for a responsible explanation of the conflicting
evidence. Witnesses who saw Kennedy's head wounds overwhelmingly describe
a wound in the back of JFK's skull that couldn't have been caused by a
shooter from behind. Credible witnessess, when shown the autopsy photos,
called them 'doctored' because they don't show the rearward skull damage.
More photographs were taken by autopsy photographers than are now extant.
On the matter of missing photographs, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Ebersole,
together with autopsist photographer John Stringer signed on 11/1/66 a
document saying, "The X-rays and photographs described and listed above
include all the X-rays and photographs taken by us during the autopsy and
we have no reason to believe that any other X-rays or photographs were
made during the autopsy". [27] Another false affidavit, signed on
11/22/63 by Stringer and Floyd Reibe, an assistant autopsy photographer,
specified the number of autopsy photographs that were taken and
surrendered to Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman. Both Stringer and Reibe
stated they were ordered to sign by Captain Stover, the Commanding Officer
of the U.S. Naval Medical School. At least the 11/1/66 affidavit was
apparently at the command of Lyndon Johnson. [28]

David Mantik is uniquely qualified to address the JFK autopsy issues;
Mantik holds a Ph.D in physics as well as an M.D. The article on "The
Medical Evidence Decoded" is more an integration of his research with the
recent efforts of other researchers. From Douglas Weldon, he notes that
several witnesses indicate a shot from the left front, probably from the
storm drain south of the first overpass. Mantik concludes that this shot
is consistent with a shot to the right forehead. [NOTE: This appears
to be a confusion between the shot from the south storm drain, which
appears to have transited the windshield and hit JFK in the throat, and
a shot from the north storm drain, which entered the right temple and
blew his brains forcefully out the back of his head.] A right frontal shot
seems likely and consistent with metallic debris found in the X-rays.
Mantik systematically attacks the existing evidence. Much evidence is
missing. This is garnered from addressing witness testimony. Many
photographs taken at the autopsy are missing. Witnesses disagree
drastically with existing photographs. Two photographs that seem unlikely
to be of the same person are a posterior head photograph that shows an
intact head (p.221); when this photograph is contrasted to the one showing
a massive head injury (p.297), one's credulity is stretched beyond reason
that they represent different views of Kennedy's head. Mantik also
explains how a metallic object can later be added to an X-ray, using film
extant in 1963. Mantik hypothesises that Kennedy's throat wound was due to
glass fragments from the windshield. Mantik concludes that high government
officials had to approve, and probably transmit, orders for alteration of
critical forensic evidence. Persons who might have warranted grand jury
investigations included James Rowley, who led the Secret Service, which
held the critical autopsy materials; Robert Knudsen, White House
photographer; and Admiral George Burley, Kennedy's personal physician. All
three kept their jobs in the Johnson administration.

Righting the Record and Epilogue

Jim Fetzer addresses the question, "Could Oswald be Convicted?", using
material from Jesse Curry's JFK Assassination File. [29] This article uses
Curry's evidence to construct a probable conspiracy. The evidence suggests
that Oswald was not likely a shooter. It does not address a possible
involvement in a conspiracy for Oswald.

David Mantik addresses the lack of historians becoming involved in
researching the Kennedy assassination. Mantik laments the "Silence of the
Historians". I would suggest Barbie Zelizer's Covering the Body [30] as
another way to view the lack of historian involvement regarding the JFK
assassination. Zelizer maintains that journalists refuse to allow the
assassination story be given to historians. Many journalists gain prestige
by their relation to the JFK story. Journalists form an interpretive
community and marginalize persons and views they oppose. Within the
journalistic community, the JFK assasination was a turning point to allow
national television journalists to elbow out local and print media for the
ascendency. The day that Kennedy died was the most important day in the
career of Dan Rather. He went from being a regional journalist to a
national corespondent. Rather claimed to be at Dealey Plaza at the time of
the assassination, but a mile away four minutes later after running the
distance, talking to Walter Cronkite later. The importance of "being" at
the assassination was important to the carees of other journalists. Life
Magazine could "be there" by purchasing the Zapruder film. One might guess
that, as the Dan Rathers are gone from the scene, historians may start to
assert a claim to researching the story.

A final essay by Bertrand Russell, noted British mathematician and
philosopher, was previously published in 1969. [31] This essay seems
relevant today, and adds a few snippets that have not been widely
reported. District Attorney Henry Wade made a statement of Oswald's
movements. Oswald took a taxi driven by Darryl Click, who had signed an
affidavit to his having driven Oswald. Wade later altered the driver's
name to William Wahley. If "Click" was Wahley, then Wahley had signed a
false affidavit. If the two were not the same, there is conflicting
evidence. In either case, Wade's actions were compromised. "Good showing,
Bertrand."

Some might fault this book for the lack of inclusion of other information
that we now know that we didn't know then. These might include the
involvement of LBJ [32, 33, 34], which includes identifying Mac Wallace's
(an LBJ henchman) print on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook
Depository. This print had long been unidentified. [35] The work of Peter
Dale Scott [36] as well as other research deserves mentioning. But a book
has to end somewhere. This is an excellent start.

Notes

1. Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (2000). Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now
that We didn't Know Then About the Death of JFK. Chicago: Catfeet
Press.

16. Mantik, D.W. (1998). Optical Density Measurements of the JFK X-
rays and a new Observation Based on the Chest X-ray. in Fetzer, J.H.
(Ed.) (1998). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death
of JFK (pp. 153-160). Chicago: Catfeet Press.

17. Mantik, D.W. (1998). Special Effects in the Zapruder Film: How
the Film of the Century was Edited. in Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (1998).
Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK (pp.
263-343). Chicago: Catfeet Press.

28. Aguilar, G. (2000). The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy in
the Death of JFK. in Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (2000). Murder in Dealey
Plaza: What We Know Now that We didn't Know Then About the Death of
JFK (pp. 175-217). Chicago: Catfeet Press.

Thoth II has nailed DiEugenio, who has proven an enormous disappointment in relation to Horne.
Here is something I posted on The Education Forum on or about 10 April 2010. Well done, Thoth!

Michael,

You make some nice points, where not only has Costella missed the boat completely but DiEugenio
in a different way. It seems to me that Jim is very good on the trees, not so good on the forest. I
offer this early paragraph as an illustration of what I mean, where he, too, has something wrong:

All the above introductory material is necessary to understand my decidedly mixed feelings about
Inside the ARRB. There seem to me a lot of good things in Horne's very long work. And I will discuss
them both here and later. But where the author gets into trouble is when he tries to fit the interesting
facts and testimony he discusses into an overarching theory. Because as we will see, although Horne
has revised Best Evidence, he still sticks to the concept of pre-autopsy surgery, and extensive criminal
conduct by the pathologists. And as Lifton clearly suggested in his book, Horne will also argue that the
Zapruder film was both edited and optically printed. (Lifton pgs. 555-557)

Unless DiEugenio is writing his reviews as he goes and does not realize what unexpected findings await
him, the fact of the matter is THERE WAS PRE-AUTOPSY SURGERY and EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL CONDUCT
BY THE PATHOLOGISTS, including lying to the HSCA and to the ARRB. And, of course, as he demonstrates
quite decisively, the arguments against film alteration advanced by ROLLIE ZAVADA, by DAVID WRONE,
and by JOSIAH THOMPSON have been thoroughly demolished in the course of Doug's extensive studies.
Egad! Somewhere DiEugenio expresses his preference for the physical evidence over the medical and
photographic, as though he did not understand that ALL OF IT has been planted, fabricated, or faked.

NOTE: DiEugenio should read the first few pages of HARVEY & LEE, in which John Armstrong observes:

Chief Curry turned the physical evidence over to the FBI and it was immediately taken to FBI Headquarters
in Washington, D.C. FBI Agent James Cadigan told the Warren Commission about receiving the evidence
(Oswald's personal possessions) on November 23rd, the day after the assassination. But when Cadigan's
testimony was published in the Warren volumes, references to November 23 had been deleted. Neither
the FBI nor the Warren Commission wanted the public to know that Oswald's personal possessions (phys-
ical evidence) had been secretly taken to Washington, DC, and quietly returned to the Dallas police.

During the three days that Oswald's possessions were in FBI custody many items were altered, fabricated,
and destroyed. The "evidence" was then returned to the Dallas Police on November 26th, and used by the
FBI and Warren Commission to help convince the American people that Oswald was the lone assassin.

As the physical evidence was undergoing alteration FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed
within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. This report
was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they "officially" received the
"evidence" from the Dallas poice, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before
the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete.

. . .

On November 26 the FBI secretly returned the physical evidence (Oswald's possessions) to the Dallas Police
where it was "officially" inventoried and photographed. When the Dallas Police received t he evidence they
were unaware that many of the items had ben altered, fabricated, and/or destroyed. President Johnson soon
announced the FBI was in charge of the investigation and, a short time later, Bureau agents arrived at Dallas
Police headquarters.

As television cameras recorded the historic event FBI agents collected the evidence, loaded it into a car, and
drove away. The public was unaware that the FBI had secretly returned the same "evidence" to the Dallas
Police earlier that morning.

Here is another--and closely related--defect in DiEugenio's understanding. He spends a lot of time with
denigrating BEST EVIDENCE, which is surely one of the most brilliant and insightful studies published in
the history of the case. Lifton was first to suspect body alteration of the cranium and also alteration by
changing the throat wound, along with the falsification of the X-rays and the substitution of another brain
for that of JFK--not to mention the substitution of another film Sunday night after bringing the original to
the NPIC the night before--but DiEugenio does not seem to understand that is how all of this was done.
The multiple casket entries, which Lifton originally discerned, has also been borne out by Horne's research:

In spite of all the above, Horne still genuflects to Best Evidence. To the point that he essentially admits
that the main reason he joined the ARRB was to prove or disprove Lifton's thesis. (p. lxviii) Sealing and
qualifying this emotional bond is the following statement: "David Lifton's work has been a great inspiration
to me over the years, and he and I eventually became very close personal friends, as well as fellow travelers
on the same intellectual journey." (p. lxix) In light of the warm feelings betrayed in that statement, it is hard
to believe that Horne expended a lot of time on disproving Lifton's thesis. In fact, I feel comfortable in writing
that if Horne had never read Best Evidence, he would never have written his series or joined the ARRB.

Given what Horne has discovered, I cannot imagine what motivates DiEugenio to shortchange Lifton.
I think that the only one who finds anything "extreme" here are those unfamiliar with the evidence,
which I had not expected to included the author of this review. If he doesn't know better, something
is terribly wrong, but it has nothing to do with Horne's research and everything to do with DiEugenio's
apparently partial state of knowledge. And you don't have to have read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM
HOAX to understand these things. The review I [have now published--below] should actually suffice.

Michael Hogan, on Apr 7 2010, 03:27 AM, said:
Pat Speer, on Apr 6 2010, 06:54 PM, said:
While I am not a fan of Horne's book, I would agree that Costella's review read more like a rant, a rant I can relate to, by the way.

Not an unexpected response. One can conclude that "not a fan" might be an understatement. The urge to rant is strong when one feels that they, their work, their intelligence, or their opinions are in some way, shape or form being challenged, questioned, diminished, etc. Pat Speer has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in researching the medical (and other) evidence.

Horne's five volumes cut a wide swath through the evidentiary landscape. While constantly adding caveats that the evidence has never come together, he nevertheless takes very strong and opinionated stands about what he thinks or speculates really happened. Writing a bible or Rosetta Stone about the Kennedy murder is, and always will be, an impossible task.

Probably the more one has studied President Kennedy's murder, the more likely they are to question Horne's research and some of his conclusions. But the ultimate value of Horne's book is certainly not that it explains everything. The value comes from being able to glean new information or possibly being persuaded to think about certain things in a different way. I challenge anyone to read Horne and not find many things with which they either concur or vehemently disagree. By design, it's an extremely controversial work.

I don't think Horne's work should be studied and reviewed as if it were a textbook, or even a compendium of the medical evidence, although it comes closer to the latter. I view it simply as one man's personal odyssey through the ultimate murder mystery labyrinth, written from his own unique perspective.

Over the years, David Lifton's findings were written about and debated extensively. Regardless whether or not one accepts his major conclusion, much of what Lifton discovered remains important as evidence. His research helped make this major episode in Horne's life possible.

Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, Thompson, Summers, Marrs, Fonzi, Hancock, Russell (and so many others I'm leaving out) did not solve the case. They advanced it, as researchers that followed them so readily admit.

If Horne advances the case, that is enough. Pointing out weaknesses in his arguments or errors in his information is certainly fair game. However, the largely unnecessary tone and content of Costella's rant caused me to lose a certain amount of respect for him.

Trouble is, see, he is a DA, put away Charlie Manson, and if you read Helter Skelter, you'll see he depending (a) heavily on the LAPD investigation, and even had to kick butt to get them to do things (b) conducted his own parallel investigation.
He spent 2 years nonstop filling up his legal pads. But then when it came to JFK, he wasn't involved personally in that case, so going back to his DA days, guess which people he will knee jerk trust? the investigative authorities, of course, like the warren commission, FBI, HSCA, etc. He put extensive research into his book on JFK for 20 years, but he did it as a prosecutor's brief: and he special pleads.

What he just doesn't get , to this day is, in a case like this, where the stakes are absolutely of scale high, the investigative authorities had a political motive to fabricate evidence, and Jim Fetzer's group of experts showed exactly how they fabricated all the evidence; plus Doug Horne has now written a treatise where he goes into more detail.

"Given what Horne has discovered, I cannot imagine what motivates DiEugenio to shortchange Lifton.
I think that the only one who finds anything "extreme" here are those unfamiliar with the evidence,
which I had not expected to included the author of this review. If he doesn't know better, something
is terribly wrong, but it has nothing to do with Horne's research and everything to do with DiEugenio's
apparently partial state of knowledge."

Yes, that would also be my take on DiEugenio. He is a documents guy, and he comments largely from interviews and transcripts. But he has no understanding of photographic and film evidence, and very little of medical evidence. Listening to his reviews of ARRB, one gets the impression that he has no understanding of the work of Lifton, Mantik, Costella, and all the major new findings. On the topics of the autopsy , photographic, and film evidence, ignore DiEugenio. On the topics of the autopsy and Z-film , ignore Groden also, but Groden does know a lot about the still photographs and has done some really nice coffee table books.

Ours friends at CTC will be featuring a show on conspiracies looks like sunday night. I will be real disappointed if the guest goes down one of those obfuscation roads so common to this field. I do not like the label CT, it implies "kook" and that was originally done by the CIA in the 60s to label guys like Mark Lane to cover their tracks on JFK. They saw it working then, so they superimposed it onto our modern situation, and now the young people , born in the dust, can't sort it out. Those evil SOBs knew what they were doing in terms of confusing the public and neutralizing the opposition. As I get each year older, I get more and more ticked off because I realize now that it was not only my generation they shafted, but now I see the young people and I wonder about their futures too.